Martinez v. Strong

Filing 7

Order Accepting #4 Findings, Conclusions and Recommendations and Denying Certificate of Appealability. (Ordered by Judge Brantley Starr on 5/6/2022) (mjr)

Case 3:22-cv-00673-X-BH Document 7 Filed 05/06/22

Page 1 of 2 PageID 28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
DALLAS DIVISION
GREGORY LEWIS MARTINEZ,
ID #01861958,
Petitioner,
v.
KELLY STRONG, Warden,
Respondent.

§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§

Civil Action No. 22-CV-00673-X-BH

ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND
RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE
JUDGE
The United States Magistrate Judge made findings, conclusions, and a
recommendation in this case.

[Doc. No. 4].

No objections were filed.

The District

Court reviewed the proposed findings, conclusions, and recommendation for plain
error.

Finding none, the Court ACCEPTS the Findings, Conclusions, and

Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge.
For the reasons stated in the findings, conclusions, and recommendation of the
United States Magistrate Judge, Martinez’s Motion to Extend Time for Filing Habeas
Corpus, received on March 22, 2022, [Doc. No. 3], is DISMISSED for lack of subject
matter jurisdiction.
In accordance with Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 22(b) and 28 U.S.C.
§ 2253(c) and after considering the record in this case and the recommendation of the
Magistrate Judge, the petitioner is DENIED a Certificate of Appealability.
1

The

Case 3:22-cv-00673-X-BH Document 7 Filed 05/06/22

Page 2 of 2 PageID 29

Court adopts and incorporates by reference the Magistrate Judge’s findings,
conclusions and recommendation in support of its finding that the petitioner has
failed to show (1) that reasonable jurists would find this Court’s “assessment of the
constitutional claims debatable or wrong,” or (2) that reasonable jurists would find
“it debatable whether the petition states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional
right” and “debatable whether [this Court] was correct in its procedural ruling.” 1
In the event that the petitioner files a notice of appeal, he must pay the $505.00
appellate filing fee or submit a motion to proceed in forma pauperis that is
accompanied by a properly signed certificate of inmate trust account.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 6th day of May, 2022.

____________________________________
BRANTLEY STARR
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). Rule 11 of the Rules Governing Section 2254
Cases in the United States District Courts, as amended effective on December 1, 2019, reads as follows:
1

(a) Certificate of Appealability. The district court must issue or deny a certificate
of appealability when it enters a final order adverse to the applicant. Before
entering the final order, the court may direct the parties to submit arguments on
whether a certificate should issue. If the court issues a certificate, the court must
state the specific issue or issues that satisfy the showing required by 28 U.S.C. §
2253(c)(2). If the court denies a certificate, the parties may not appeal the denial
but may seek a certificate from the court of appeals under Federal Rule of
Appellate Procedure 22. A motion to reconsider a denial does not extend the time
to appeal.
(b) Time to Appeal. Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a) governs the time to
appeal an order entered under these rules. A timely notice of appeal must be filed
even if the district court issues a certificate of appealability.

2